IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v295y2015icp113-122.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the nature conservation value of field habitats: A model approach for targeting agri-environmental measures and projecting their effects

Author

Listed:
  • Bredemeier, Birte
  • von Haaren, Christina
  • Rüter, Stefan
  • Reich, Michael
  • Meise, Thomas

Abstract

Agricultural practice is one of the most important factors leading to biodiversity loss. EU policies addressing this problem involve the provision of incentives for agri-environmental measures (AEM) and setting of targets for AEM on the national scale (e.g. for the amount of organic farming according to the German sustainability strategy), as well as monitoring their success. For AEM to most efficiently target, implement and monitor, they require comparable evaluation of results, describing their quantitative effects on biodiversity and nature conservation. However, there is a dearth of regional data about species and habitats, parts of biodiversity that are relevant for nature conservation. Thus, quantitative analyses are not typically feasible. Furthermore, impacts of agricultural practices on biodiversity cannot be analysed and evaluated merely from individual cases. Comparisons with average or maximum achievements on different spatial scales (benchmarking) are needed. However, meaningful state and pressure indicators are lacking for modelling the nature conservation value of agricultural fields and the consequences of changing pressures from agricultural practice.

Suggested Citation

  • Bredemeier, Birte & von Haaren, Christina & Rüter, Stefan & Reich, Michael & Meise, Thomas, 2015. "Evaluating the nature conservation value of field habitats: A model approach for targeting agri-environmental measures and projecting their effects," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 113-122.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:295:y:2015:i:c:p:113-122
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014003883
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martinez-Alier, Joan & Munda, Giuseppe & O'Neill, John, 1998. "Weak comparability of values as a foundation for ecological economics," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 277-286, September.
    2. Miguet, Paul & Gaucherel, Cédric & Bretagnolle, Vincent, 2013. "Breeding habitat selection of Skylarks varies with crop heterogeneity, time and spatial scale, and reveals spatial and temporal crop complementation," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 266(C), pages 10-18.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew C. LaFevor & Alexandra G. Ponette-González & Rebecca Larson & Leah M. Mungai, 2021. "Spatial Targeting of Agricultural Support Measures: Indicator-Based Assessment of Coverages and Leakages," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, July.
    2. Christian Albert & Johannes Hermes & Felix Neuendorf & Christina Von Haaren & Michael Rode, 2016. "Assessing and Governing Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in Agrarian Landscapes: The Case of Biogas," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, January.
    3. Albert, Christian & Schröter-Schlaack, Christoph & Hansjürgens, Bernd & Dehnhardt, Alexandra & Döring, Ralf & Job, Hubert & Köppel, Johann & Krätzig, Sebastian & Matzdorf, Bettina & Reutter, Michaela , 2017. "An economic perspective on land use decisions in agricultural landscapes: Insights from the TEEB Germany Study," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 69-78.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    2. Ramos-Martin, Jesus, 2003. "Empiricism in ecological economics: a perspective from complex systems theory," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 387-398, October.
    3. J. Ram Pillarisetti & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2008. "Sustainable Nations: What do Aggregate Indicators tell us?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-012/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    4. Tubridy, Fiadh & Lennon, Mick & Scott, Mark, 2022. "Managed retreat and coastal climate change adaptation: The environmental justice implications and value of a coproduction approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    5. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    6. Spash, Clive L. & Vatn, Arild, 2006. "Transferring environmental value estimates: Issues and alternatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 379-388, December.
    7. Martin Hensher & Gerry McCartney & Eleanor Ochodo, 2024. "Health Economics in a World of Uneconomic Growth," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 427-433, July.
    8. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    9. Ogawa, Ryo & Engler, Jan O. & Cord, Anna F., 2024. "Functional responses in habitat selection as a management tool to evaluate agri-environment schemes for farmland birds," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 494(C).
    10. Beling, Adrián E. & Vanhulst, Julien & Demaria, Federico & Rabi, Violeta & Carballo, Ana E. & Pelenc, Jérôme, 2018. "Discursive Synergies for a ‘Great Transformation’ Towards Sustainability: Pragmatic Contributions to a Necessary Dialogue Between Human Development, Degrowth, and Buen Vivir," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 304-313.
    11. Ulrich J Frey & Frauke Pirscher, 2018. "Willingness to pay and moral stance: The case of farm animal welfare in Germany," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Garmendia, Eneko & Stagl, Sigrid, 2010. "Public participation for sustainability and social learning: Concepts and lessons from three case studies in Europe," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1712-1722, June.
    13. Bernd Klauer & Martin Drechsler & Frank Messner, 2006. "Multicriteria Analysis under Uncertainty with IANUS—Method and Empirical Results," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 235-256, April.
    14. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Walther Zeug & Alberto Bezama & Urs Moesenfechtel & Anne Jähkel & Daniela Thrän, 2019. "Stakeholders’ Interests and Perceptions of Bioeconomy Monitoring Using a Sustainable Development Goal Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-24, March.
    16. Ansell, Christopher K. & Bartenberger, Martin, 2016. "Varieties of experimentalism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 64-73.
    17. Scheidel, Arnim, 2013. "Flows, funds and the complexity of deprivation: Using concepts from ecological economics for the study of poverty," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 28-36.
    18. Michael B. Wironen & Robert V. Bartlett & Jon D. Erickson, 2019. "Deliberation and the Promise of a Deeply Democratic Sustainability Transition," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-18, February.
    19. Bliss, Sam & Egler, Megan, 2020. "Ecological Economics Beyond Markets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 178(C).
    20. de Wildt, T.E. & Chappin, E.J.L. & van de Kaa, G. & Herder, P.M. & van de Poel, I.R., 2019. "Conflicting values in the smart electricity grid a comprehensive overview," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 184-196.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:295:y:2015:i:c:p:113-122. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.